• Archive 1 — Top 100 hits, notability for performers, albums, size of countries, genres, record labels, college groups, indie groups
• Archive 2
• Archive 3 (Feb -> June 2006)
• Archive 4 (July 2006 -> Dec 2006)
• Archive 5 (Jan 2007 - April 2007)
• Archive 6 (May 2007 - December 2007

Would the national level of a junior competition be a "major" musical competition? Question is specifically in regard to the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2007, where the articles on all the national winners were nominated for speedy deletion: Lisa, Amy & Shelley, Trust (2007 band), Alexandra Golovchenko, 4Kids (group), Made In Greece. Articles from 2006 national winners include Andrey Kunets. The international winners seem notable enough, and Thor Salden went on to a more clear independent fame. What do others think? Gimmetrow 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Salden seems to have charted so thats his notability. Andrey Kunets, however, doesnt seem to be notable. the guide says has won or placed in a major music competition. If they havent won or placed in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2007 then i dont think they can claim notability. The best bet would be to see if you can find some reliable articles on them if there arent any they probably arent notable enough for an article as there wouldnt be enough source to make the article any more than a stub. Non-notability is not a valid reason for a speedy delete request. It could only be done by proposed deletion --Neon white (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All these groups have won their national junior competition. My question is whether a national junior competition is a "major" competition. Apparently a few admins don't consider winning a national junior competition even a *claim* to notability. Another factor is that many of these groups will never do anything else, either because they don't succeed or because they split up. Personally, I would merge the brief descriptions to the article on the international contest, and only split out ones who become independently notable. Gimmetrow 23:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed it but I do not see DJs in this guide. Do they fall here or under WP:Bio? Do we need specific criteria on them? Gtstricky (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose they might be governed by WP:Music#Others in terms of criterion #5. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be cosidered under 'Criteria for musicians and ensembles' --Neon white (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would contestants for an upcoming musical competition be notable? Say, the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2007?-Carados (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above. They are not just contestants. Gimmetrow 22:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to create a series of articles pertaining to Texas musician Trent Summar, and the two bands that he is/was members of (Hank Flamingo and Trent Summar & The New Row Mob). However, because all three are on the fringe of passing WP:MUSIC, and because sources are scant, I'm not certain if I should make a separate page for each act, or do some combining. Here are the facts:

• Trent Summar meets criterion #1 for composers and lyricists, as he co-wrote a single for Jack Ingram and an album track for Billy Currington.
• Trent Summar & The New Row Mob meet criterion #2 for musicians and ensembles, as they entered the U.S. country music charts in 2000 (albeit with a single that peaked at #74). They also seem to meet criterion #5, as two of their albums were on marginally notable labels: VFR (a label that, while very short-lived, was also home to Mark McGuinn and Hometown News) and Palo Duro Records.
• Hank Flamingo, then, would meet criterion #6, as Summar was a former member of it back in the 1990s. They recorded only one album (although it was on a major label), and never charted. The only reliable source I can find for the band per se is their bio on All Music Guide.

I would like to know what anyone else thinks is the best option for handling these three pages. So far, I'm thinking that the best option would be to make Hank Flamingo a redirect to Trent Summar and make a separate entry for Trent Summar & The New Row Mob, but I'd like to hear some feedback from other users regarding how to handle these three pages. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TenPoundHammer. Your approach sounds plausible to me. Alternatively, if you find there's not enough sourcing to sustain the three, you might want to make one page for Trent Summar & The New Row Mob and redirect both of the other articles to it. With Trent Summar being bandleader, I think that approach would be sensible, too. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A musician or ensemble is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:... 9. Has won or placed in a major music competition."

• Two major problems:
  • 1) What is a major music competition? How is it defined?
  • 2) What does "placed" mean? 2nd? 3rd? 8th? 137th? Very unclear. Especially on such articles as minor American Idol or X Factor contestants. (Are these even major music competitions?)
• BLACKKITE 01:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Australian Idol, we generally just have winner/runner up getting their own article, and anyone who releases after the show has to garnish notability through other means (releases on notable record label, reliable sources discussing them specifically (not discussing the contest), etc.). But I'm not sure what the deal is in other cases. And I would consider Aus Idol to be a "major" competition. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 01:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd agree that Aus Idol is (and the two that I mentioned too). But then again it's difficult to draw a bright line at a certain point. BLACKKITE 01:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say we could certainly draw a line with Idol/X Factor competitions - preferably the line I noted above. With other competitions I don't know. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 01:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at WP:IDOL is that the finalists for each country's idol get articles, and the others are redirected to the season (or series) if they aren't famous for some other reason. I would say typically only a winner or runner-up in a music competition could use the criterion here. As for what the major music competitions are, though, is hard to brightline. I would say anything at a national or international level would be enough of a claim to keep the article from speedy deletion, but it may need discussion at afd to decide if the competition were significant enough. A good rule of thumb, that I often think of with the 2 or more albums rule, is whether the competition is notable in its own right, i.e. whether it does (or should) have its own article. Of course that just pushes the discussion to a different article, but you can consider how widely-reported it is (in reliable sources) and so forth. Rigadoun (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if the competition isn't notable, you'll have a tough case trying to assert criterion 9 on such a case. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

Could we perhaps be more specific with this? Spin (radio) defines light rotation as 5-15 times a week and medium and heavy as progressively more (yet it isn't sourced). It think we should either specify using that article's criteria or our own what level of rotation is adequate. Personally I think if a song has never hit at least medium rotation (10-25 plays/week, then its notability could still be questionable, as with independent artists that make a release, sure it makes it to the radio, but it never really gets much in the way of listenership(made up word?).--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you by any chance have examples of a song that has hit light rotation that isn't notable? Examples make discussions easier. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I would get an example of a specific song. After all, if they're non-notable, even in light rotation, why would I or anyone else really bother taking note of them? I do have one possible example from a previous deletion discussion that I'll try to look up.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the original afd where this occurred to me:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EuphoriaX. Its not major but the person who created the article seemed to support the idea that the band had received light rotation, but given that this page never specifies what amount of play qualifies as "rotation" in the first place its hard to say. Also a lot of radio stations and networks have something akin to a "local band hour" or something similar, and it might be a good idea to be specific about whether or not this is included. Personally I think the spirit of the guideline is that these things are not qualifiers for notability, but that it is sufficiently ambiguous to lead to unnecessary disputes/confusion.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD discussion that was closed as a no consensus brings up a question about what qualifies as a "national music chart." In this case, a listing on an iTunes chart was, according to the [admin], one of the reasons for the no-consensus. (For the record, I mildly disagree with the close, as by numbers the debate was 9-3 for deletion, but not enough to contest it vigorously.)

I'd like to know what the view of such charts based on individual websites or sales outlets such as iTunes - are they considered "national music charts" for the consideration of WP:MUSIC? Personally, I feel that it should be a chart that's put out by a recognized independent publication like Billboard, as nobody's really sure what the reasoning for the chart numbers expressed by something that makes its money by selling said music might be, in my opinion. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 07:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed - I don't believe that should be counted as a national music chart (especially as it's a specialist chart) and that AfD should really have been closed as Delete. We've had this situation come up before where bands/songs have been claimed as notable through appearing in such niche charts as Christian Rock or Drum'n'Bass. BLACKKITE 09:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume a national chart would refer to a national singles chart not a genre chart or any website sales chart. If itunes' charts are allowed then supposedly we would have to allow any online sales chart. --neonwhite user page talk 18:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any criterion listed in the notability guidelines means "If X happened to subject Y, we assume that Y has been covered by enough independent sources for us to write an article. Clearly in this case the band has not been covered by independent sources, so the assumption doesn't hold. Btw, the chart in question was the iTunes Dance subchart, not the overall iTunes chart. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any reliable record of historical placings on the iTunes charts? I found current top 10s by country, both for sales in general and for specific genres, but I can't find any way to verifiably claim that "song x reach #y on the iTunes deathgrindcore charts in 2006," for instance. This would make it hard to use those charts as evidence of notability. --Stormie (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we further define what non-trivial in relation to non-trivial published sources. Obviously what is considered trivial is subjective so i think it would be a good idea to specify a little. Are we talking the length of an article? what is contained in the article? Does it have to be a featured on the subject? --neonwhite user page talk 17:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe non-trivial has to do with the relative importance of the mention in the published source. There's a footnote exemplifying it at WP:N, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current criteria is that an international tour reported in a reliable source establishes band notability. However, some non-notable weekend cover bands, junior high school marching bands, and other non-notable bands probably meet this. This Rfc is to discuss refining the criteria to make it less inclusive. 20:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing earlier, and I think this criteria needs to be tightened up a little bit. Perhaps if attendance / sponsorship and so on is taken into account here it would make for a more concrete qualifier. As it stands right now, this is subject to a lot of interpretation. For example, it is MUCH easier to tour internationally in Europe than in The United States, Canada, and Australia, simply for geographical reasons. Also, a band with sufficiently wealthy members could fund an international "tour" much the same way a group of people would go on vacation together, and it says nothing of whether anyone actually bothered to listen to them or if they were received well.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says that the tour has to be covered in reliable secondary sources which cuts out alot of non-notable tours. --neonwhite user page talk 22:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Reliable newspapers will often have articles or blurbs on local music scenes. CM (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local music scenes aren't national or international tours. If they have coverage that would make them notable. --neonwhite user page talk 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a non-notable band meets a notability criteria, they are, by definition, notable. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your statement is tautologically true. I just restated the Rfc to make the point of the Rfc more clear. The point is to discuss whether or not the criteria is too inclusive. CM (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DHMO, That seems like an incidence of doublespeak to me. Wikipedia's guideline is really more of defining what "degree" of notability something has. Personally I would recommend assessing it as when someone refers something as "non-notable" it is more or less a colloquial representation of "not notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia."--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I misunderstood the original request. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strike criteria Strike the criteria. 4. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources. It is not necessary. The other criteria are completely sufficient. CM (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um...suggest we let some other people discuss this too? So far (as far as I can see) nobody has supported striking, etc. Personally, I don't think the criteria is too inclusive, as it's covered by the reliable sources quota. I wouldn't object to a number (eg. 2 reliable sources) and the requirement that the band/musician is specifically covered, but I think the criteria should be kept. In any case, I reverted you on the main page until we get more discussion. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right. At least one user is ignoring the reliable sources when it comes to speedy deletes, though.[1][2] Of course, a speedy delete is something different than an Afd, and this user might have just been wrong. CM (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD criteria is far more lenient than notability. It only asks that there is any assertion (rather than a sufficient assertion). 2 albums and a tour is an assertion of notability, not necessarily enough for AfD (per this policy, although I think it is) but enough for CSD. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i support adding 'non-trivial' as a quantifier to the reports. I do agree that it shouldnt include minor mentions such as a supporting act getting a brief mention in an article about the headlining act. --neonwhite user page talk 05:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, independent specific (non trivial) coverage sounds good. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can go along with this. Who will make the change? CM (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Don't remove this. A national tour is unquestionably an indicator of notability. Should it be automatic that national tour=inclusion? Probably not, but removing it altogether is not the right approach. Music has benefited on Wikipedia by having one of the more liberal and objective notability categories. There's no reason to start hacking away at it haphazardly. Torc2 (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• add "non-trivial" to the criteria. Something like: "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." Dlabtot (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• add "non-trivial" to the criteria, as per Dlabtot. Hpfan9374 (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change made. [3] Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is really bad. What is "non-trivial" coverage? What coverage is needed for a tour aside from dates and locations? Would local coverage of one date of a national tour be sufficient? How about local coverage in several cities? This needs to be discussed more before the change is made. Torc2 (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is non-trivial and trivial is largely decided on a case by case basis. Guidelines can't cover ever situation. --neonwhite user page talk 19:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This change makes it so it doesn't cover most situations. The question stands: if there's an ad in a San Francisco paper that says Band X is playing at the Fillmore on May 10th, one in a Seattle paper that says they're playing the Crocodile on May 12th, and so on, does that qualify? It should. Torc2 (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it should be removed, it's unecessary. If a band is the subject of reliable independant articles then they are notable. --neonwhite user page talk 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you got that out of what I wrote. The band is the subject of independent coverage, not "articles". The fact the coverage isn't in full-length articles is irrelevant; that level independent coverage is what is appropriate for all parties concerned and sufficient for notability purposes. Torc2 (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue with this criteria is what is a national tour? How many dates/performances make it a tour? How far do you have to go for it not to be a local tour. Should tours like Lollapalooza count? Are we to rely on a secondary source describing the tour as a national tour for all these points? --neonwhite user page talk 03:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• May as well get rid of it. If the band is genuinely notable, sources will exist. If no one's written about them, nothing else (toured this, won some award that), makes a bit of difference. Enough secondary sourcing is present to write an article, or not. (I have no objection to presenting guidelines as to when a search for sourcing is more likely to prove fruitful, but only if it's made clear that if it does not the subject is still not notable—because it hasn't been noted. That's really all it comes down to. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, if reliable sources exist that cite a national tour wouldn't that qualify an artist under the 1st criteria anyway? --neonwhite user page talk 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly, and that's why I don't like the sub-guidelines. If something mentions in passing that Band X toured, and that's the only independent material available, Band X is not notable. If there's substantial material available on Band X in independent and reliable sources, an article is justified. While it may seem counterintuitive, notability has nothing to do with importance or significance or accomplishments. Notability is verifiable. It is verified by having been noted by independent and reliable sources and they having written significant quantities of material, not something else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of music is different to general notability guidelines, hence the seperate, it was obviously decided by consensus that criteria for music needed to be more inclusive. --neonwhite user page talk 19:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Band X is playing mid-sized venues (say, 250+ capacity) nationwide, they're sufficiently notable regardless of the amount of material written in papers about the dates. The host venue is an independent body; that notability requirement is satisfied by the host venue believing the band is notable to host them and not having the band play tiny 50-person bars, and by local papers listing the concert in their schedules; that's really all the information necessary. Torc2 (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that's rubbish. Notability is based on verifiable sources. Advertising is not a criteria for notability as it is self-published. As the policy says 'anyone can pay to have a book published', in the same way 'anyone can pay to go on tour and pay to have it advertised' but if no-one goes or cares much about it, it's not noteworthy. --neonwhite user page talk 03:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bands themselves do not published the ads; they are independent of the primary subject. Anybody can go on tour, but not anybody can be booked into multiple large venues across the country. Torc2 (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can finance their own tour. Advertising and promotional material is self-published and not an acceptable source for notability. Self-published doesnt necessarily mean that the artist themselves is involved in the publishing, it just means it's not second party or independent. --neonwhite user page talk 19:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Financing your own tour is not the same as getting booked into a decent-sized venue. Listing events in a calendar is not advertising and is not self-publishing; it's an independent body (a paper or magazine) publishing information about another independent body (a venue) hosting the subject. That's short coverage, but it's all the coverage the event needs, and should not be dismissed as "trivial". If the band was not notable, they would not play major venues and the dates would be ignored by the press. I've seen enough shows at 50-seat venues to know they're not listed on most papers' event calendars. Torc2 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Financing your own tour can meen anything, if you have enough money, you can play anywhere you want. An advert is self published and can never be a valid source for notability. Please see the WP:N policy, specifically the part on being "Independent of the subject" which includes "self-publicity and advertising". Publicity and advertising is paid for, anyone can do, it doesnt make you notable. Notability stems from journalists and editors considering you are important enough to publish. The size of venue is irrelevant is the media do not consider it notable enough to print. --neonwhite user page talk 18:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No band has that kind of money, and it's an unrealistic argument. Bands that tour nationally don't rent large venues from the owners, they make agreements with the owners to play there. Can you find any source that argues otherwise? That bands rent halls out on nationwide tours and hope they break even? It doesn't happen that way. Also, calendars of evens are not ads and are independent coverage. Torc2 (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have knowledge of the amount money every band has? There have certainly been bands created by persons wealthy enough to potentially finance their own tours personally. You pay to use a vanue usually through a third party such as a promoter, they don't invite you to play there based on how notable they think you are, unless it's a festival, those are usual done by invite. I repeat "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc Please read the guidelines, lists of dates are clearly promotional material and therefore not independant and cannot be used as evidence of notability --neonwhite user page talk 17:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Is it remotely possible that somebody could finance their own cross-country tour at known and expected great financial loss? Sure. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this has actually occurred or is standard practice for more than a fraction of a percent of national tours? Go ahead and provide it. More than likely, if such evidence is presented, it would make the band that did that ineligible under this rule, but it's exceptionally, painfully unlikely that this affects any of the bands we've admitted using this standard. And I don't know how to say this any more clearly: a local paper printing a calendar of upcoming events is not advertising. It is not promotional material any more than a calendar saying yesterday was Valentine's day is promoting Hallmark. It is not self-publicity. It is not advertising. It is not self-published material by the subject (which is the band, not the venue). It is not an autobiography. It is not a press release. It is nothing remotely published by the band itself. It is information published by a third party independent of both the band and the venue about upcoming events that is provided for no other reason than the paper's belief that their readers might be interested in knowing the event is occurring. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 08:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't remotely possible, it's possible and been done, otherwise notable artists have funded their own tours. So an artist who isnt notable could easily do the same. A list of dates is advertising, it is created by the subject to advertise the event and for no other reason. Valentine's day is a religious holiday it is not a commercial event. Please cease these pointless arguements and false analogies. The guidelines are quite clear that adveristing and promotional meteral is not independent of the subject. I think you are being incredibly niave in thinking that events are published in a newspaper because an editor thinks they might be of interest. This is ludicrous. They are printed at the request of the artist, if they didnt request it, it wouldn't be there. --neonwhite user page talk 18:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being uncivil and grossly overstating how often bands rent out halls instead of being booked into them. This is what a booking contract looks like; if a promoter doesn't believe a band will be popular enough to make the venue money, they will not sign the contract. Being booked us not remotely the same as renting out the venue as a private event and charging admission. Do you run a venue? Have you toured? Or even read a book about touring? Do you have an evidence whatsoever that bands renting out venues themselves occurs regularly enough to disregard this notability criterion? Can you name even ten bands who weren't already popular that have done this for an entire nationwide tour? Can you name a single band that has been accepted into Wikipedia via this criteria who actually rented large venues themselves instead of getting booked into them? Valentine's day is religious? OK, fine, substitute Secretary's Day - the point is the same. You are arguing that information about events published without compensation by an independent third party is "advertising", and you're calling me naive? Do you have any evidence that supports the assertion a band personally asks a local paper to print a calendar of events for an entire venue? Do you believe that if a band doesn't personally call the paper and ask to be included in the calender of events, it doesn't happen? Or that any press release issued will automatically be published by the local papers? Tone it down and provide support for your assertions. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contracts have nothing to do with a venue thinking a band is popular. A promoter organises a tour, it is up to them to decide whether an act can make them money, the venue has no input in this, they just exist to be hired by the promoter. The promoter decides what venues to use and what size is necessary. If you dont fill a venue or sell tickets, it is the promoter that usually loses money, not the venue. Obviously there may be other systems of business but this is the usual way i believe. See Promoter (entertainment) for more info. We are talking about professional national tours here not a small band phoning round the local bars to get 30 mins on stage. I think it would be common sense that advertising in a local paper would be classed as advertising. Of course it wont be in the paper if nobody requests it. How are they going to know about it? Ultimately, this discussion is worthless, the above consensus is obvious that simply going on a tour is not evidence of notability unless reliable sources report it. --neonwhite user page talk 23:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However i do believe that adding tours that involve a major promoter (i.e. one that has promoted tours of several other notable bands) would improve the criteria. --neonwhite user page talk 23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Either the promoter or the venue are independent parties from the band. Either one making a decision to book a band on a national tour into large venues qualifies as evidence of notability. You continue to mistakenly insist that a calender of events is "advertising"; you have no evidence to support this assertion, or really, any of your other assertions. You have also yet to provide any examples of any bands who have reached notability through this criterion who are not in fact notable. I really see no reason to continue this discussion until you provide any evidence this is being misused. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 08:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably a bit late, here, but it's also worth noting that this criterion helps establish notability for non-mainstream-pop groups as well. For instance, a Chinese folk ensemble which tours the U.S. and gets a writeup in the New York Times could then be definitively established as notable. Same with classical chamber ensembles and so forth. As long as there's a reliable source to back it up, an international tour is a fine indicator of a group's notability. Chubbles (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main arguement from my point of view is that the criteria is obsolete. If an act has reliable sources then they qualify as notabile anyway. --neonwhite user page talk 16:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true of all of these criteria. These are indicators which help us determine whether the group is of sufficient popularity or critical acclaim to merit an article. Chubbles (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't true of all critera, nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 don't require the usual second party reliable sources. --neonwhite user page talk 17:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A group whose tour is generating independent press already has sources for notability elsewhere, so that this will be a non-issue. The fact is that any "non-trivial coverage in a reliable source" is a usable source. Cut point 4. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline doesn't say anything regarding articles about symphonies, like the articles linked from the lists seen in Category:Lists of symphonies. Now, I think it's obvious that a symphony by a notable composer is notable, but this guideline should probably address it. --Pixelface (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Notability is not inherited, many could probably receive brief mentions in the parent article. What matters is sourcing regarding the specific subject, not who wrote it or whether they're notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSA is a myth. Is it referred to anywhere besides WP:AADD? Besides, a symphony is analogous to a book, and we do allow a book to be deemed notable simply because its author is. Torc2 (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So given that WP:ATT died a fairly impressive death and is now maintained only as an essay, does anyone object to my rephrasing the last paragraph of the introduction to point to WP:V and WP:N instead? --jonny-mt 06:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --jonny-mt 02:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles criteria 9 states that musicians and ensembles can be considered notable if they produce a work which becomes put into rotation nationally by any major radio network.

• Would a satellite-based service such as XM or Sirius count?
• Would a cable-television based service such as Music Choice or Music Choice Extra count?
• Would an internet-based service by a very large provider such as AOL.com or DI.fm count?

JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to listeners. The spirit of the criterion is that acts that get significant play on a wide-reaching network are likely to be sourceable. Nationwide repeated play on a major network would reach people on the order of millions. I seriously doubt that individual XM or Sirius channels, or Music Choice rotation would lead to millions of listeners. The internet ones, I'm not as familiar with. DI.com, for instance probably shouldn't count -- they apparently have many different simultaneous broadcasts, so rotation on one of those wouldn't reach that many people. And I do think millions is the kind of numbers we should be talking about: in borderline cases, we ought to just look for sources. Mangojuice^talk 13:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you don't like this criterion at all. I would agree that it seems rather arbitrary. If the move was to eliminate this national rotation criterion, I might be inclined to support that. But to summarily denounce one or more of the above for one article, while accepting, for example Westwood One for another, seems too arbitrary. Perhaps it should only apply if the network in question was listed in Radio network or its associated daughter lists, or shows up in Category:Internet radio. Or for an unmanipulatable resource, perhaps the MIT radio locator? I dunno. This criteria is too spongy the way it is, IMHO. JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the way I see this. For most subjects beyond music, the criterion is basically the existence of adequate sources. That makes sense because in any event every topic must be verifiable anyway. For musical topics, that is still the minimum requirement, but there's a gap between sourced and sourceable. If someone thinks a subject should be deleted, they are asking for sources. When a subject's apparent importance is clear, lack of sourcing is not a good reason for deletion, but rather a matter for eventual improvement. The purpose of the other criteria beyond #1 here serve to describe cases where it should be clear that the group is notable, and that the article should therefore not be deleted because sources seem highly likely to exist, even if none have been brought forward. So, a group being played repeatedly on a broadcast with millions of listeners makes sense -- they must be significant enough that good sources exist somewhere. Mangojuice^talk 20:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 5

What are the major labels? Which labels are major indie? Are there criteria that make a label 'major'? Is this label satisfying the criteria, if they exist? Thank You. Welt^anschaunng 16:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always gone by the logic that if it's got an article, it's sufficiently major. Others may disagree with me here though. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say if it has an article, it's either major or "an important indie". I'm sure there's a more technical definition somewhere. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I go by number of notable acts signed -- at least a couple notable artists (i.e. notable for something more than just being on that label) probably means the label's notable too. For example, Broken Bow Records has five acts signed right now: Jason Aldean, Crossin' Dixon, Lila McCann, Craig Morgan, and Megan Mullins. All five have charted singles, and two of the five have put out multiple albums for the label (Morgan has three, one of which is gold; Aldean has two, one platinum and one gold). Just the label's current roster alone is enough to illustrate notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The currect criteria says many of the bands should be notable. I think this criteria needs work as there is often confusion. Why does it add to an artists notability that they have released material on the same label as someone else who is notable? To me this just doesnt add up. I think there needs to be better criteria for defining non-important labels or the criteria itself needs to be reassessed. --neonwhite user page talk 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A label is independent of the band; being signed and distributed by the label means they believe the band is notable. It's like asking "Why does it add notability for a subject to be covered in the New York Times? Just because they've covered other major stories?" —Torc. ^(Talk.) 08:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No that's not the same at all, it's like saying all products made by a company are notable because one of their products is. Music is the product of a record label so if it makes several notable products, it doesn't follow that all their products are notable. Obviously some independant labels have a distinct history, [2 tone], [Sub pop] etc but the majority do not. I believe this should be defined solely by significant second party coverage of the labels' histories and not by the fact that they may have had a handful of barely notable bands signed at one time. --neonwhite user page talk 16:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music is the product of a record label so if it makes several notable products, it doesn't follow that all their products are notable. Your argument is flawed. The label does not record the album and is under no obligation to release the album (unless the contract states as much, which is a different indication of notability for the artist). Stories are the product of new outlets, so if a paper has released reports on several notable subjects, do we assume any subject covered is notable? Yes, actually, that's how we define notability. Do we automatically accept articles from all newspapers with equal weight? No, because we require the journalistic body to have a certain reputation. The same goes for labels: do we assume every album released on any label is notable? No, only the labels that have built a reputation. The same thing goes for the analogous situation in just about any other medium: an artist who has an exhibit in the NYC MOMA is going to be notable based on that alone; an exhibit in Bob's Museum on 12th isn't. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their is no flaw. The label does produce the album. They own the recording and the rights to reproduce it, so it is their product. The subject of news is entirely a false analogy as wikipeida relies specifically on published sources for notability. A better analogy is in sports personalities, you are not necessarily guaranteed notability because you play or played on the same team as another sportsman who is considered notable. What is a 'reputation'? the only way to have a reputation is through second party reliable sources as i suggested. What we have to consider that there are potentially hundreds of tiny labels that have had a handful of artists notable signed to them at one time or another. Does that make them an important or a major independant label? --neonwhite user page talk 21:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any player on a professional sports team is automatically considered notable, so that's another analogy that goes in favor of keeping this. The relationship of labels to artists and their recordings is not cut-and-dried. To say the label "owns" the recording isn't really accurate. They might own the master tapes and the copyright. In any case, this might establish a link between a label and an album, but the label and the band are still independent bodies. That the label invested in the band and released their music is proof that the label believes the band is notable. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]